Recog IP v. Macy's: Consent Judgment After 417 Days in W.D. Texas
Recog IP, LLC sued Macy's, Inc. in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of US7296062B2, a patent covering methods for re-locating previously called web information pages. The case closed by consent judgment 417 days after filing, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement's terms.
A web-navigation patent dispute resolved by agreed court judgment
On December 3, 2021, Recog IP, LLC filed suit against Macy's, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-01260) before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint alleged infringement of US7296062B2, which covers a method for generating a presentation to re-locate an information page that has already been called — technology relevant to web navigation and page-redirect functionality in e-commerce environments.
The case closed on January 24, 2023, recorded in the docket as a Consent Judgment. The docket order itself is styled as a stipulated dismissal of all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The specific terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Resolution after 417 days — before any reported claim construction or trial — is consistent with a negotiated exit, though the precise drivers remain unknown from the public record. The court's retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement suggests the parties entered into binding post-dismissal obligations, the nature of which is not publicly available.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 417 days
417 days — from filing to consent judgment in W.D. Texas
US7296062B2 — Method for re-locating a called web information page
Any company operating e-commerce platforms, web portals, or content management systems that incorporate page re-location, URL redirection, or session-state recovery functionality should assess their exposure to US7296062B2. The consent judgment in this case produced no public claim construction, leaving scope ambiguity that NPE holders may exploit in future assertions against other defendants.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records a stipulated dismissal of all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs and fees, and the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The recorded Basis of Termination is Consent Judgment. No merits determination — on infringement or validity of US7296062B2 — appears in the available public record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered final order
A consent judgment is not merely a private settlement — it is a judgment entered by the court on terms agreed by the parties, carrying the same legal force as a litigated judgment. Here, the court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, meaning either party may return to court for enforcement without re-filing. The underlying stipulation invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), but the recorded Basis of Termination is Consent Judgment.
Court-entered, enforceable judgmentRecog IP secures a court-enforced resolution on agreed terms
As plaintiff and patent holder, Recog IP achieved a court-entered resolution without proceeding to claim construction or trial. The consent judgment preserves judicial enforceability of whatever obligations Macy's assumed under the settlement agreement. US7296062B2 remains in force as a granted patent; no invalidity finding was made. The specific terms — including any licensing or payment arrangements — are not disclosed in the available public record.
Patent survives; no invalidity findingMacy's exits the litigation on negotiated terms, bearing own fees
Macy's avoided a merits adjudication of the infringement claims. The stipulation provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees — no fee-shifting was ordered. All claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Recog IP cannot re-assert the same claims in a new action. The specific obligations Macy's assumed under the settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims dismissed with prejudice; own feesWeb-navigation patents remain a live assertion risk for e-commerce operators
This case signals that NPE holders of web-navigation and page re-location patents continue to target large e-commerce retailers in W.D. Texas. A consent judgment without public terms provides limited market transparency. Other retailers operating similar page-redirect or re-location functionality should assess their exposure to US7296062B2 and related portfolio patents. Judge Albright's court remains a high-volume venue for such disputes.
E-commerce patent risk; NPE assertionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Recog IP, LLC | Company | NPE patent assertion entity — holder of US7296062B2 (web page re-location method)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Macy's, Inc. | Company | Macy's, Inc. — major U.S. omnichannel retail and e-commerce operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for Recog IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing Recog IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryan P. Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Macy's, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christian D. Ehret | Attorney | Counsel for Macy's, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kent E. Baldauf , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Macy's, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Webb Law Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Macy's, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the web-navigation and page re-location patent space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence signals derived from Recog IP v. Macy's — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space near US7296062B2.
Recog IP's patent portfolio and assertion activity
Recog IP is a patent assertion entity whose visible enforcement activity centres on web-navigation and information-page retrieval technology. Mapping their full portfolio — including continuation and family members beyond US7296062B2 — can reveal additional assertion vectors relevant to e-commerce and web infrastructure operators. Portfolio breadth typically signals the range of future defendants at risk.
NPE portfolio mappingFiling trends in web page re-location and URL redirect patents
Patent filing activity in web navigation, URL redirection, and session-state recovery has evolved alongside the growth of e-commerce and cloud-based content delivery. Understanding current filing trends — including who is filing and in which jurisdictions — helps product and IP teams anticipate where the next wave of NPE assertions may originate in this technical domain.
Filing trend analysisMacy's patent position in e-commerce and web technology
As a major omnichannel retailer, Macy's IP portfolio and defensive patent posture in web technology and e-commerce infrastructure is relevant to understanding its vulnerability to NPE assertions. Assessing Macy's own filing activity — and gaps in its defensive portfolio — provides a benchmark for similar retailers evaluating their own litigation risk exposure.
Defensive IP benchmarkingAdjacent innovation opportunities near US7296062B2
The technical domain around web page re-location and information retrieval presentation methods contains potential white space — areas where claim coverage is sparse and original filing may establish defensive or commercial IP. R&D teams working on dynamic page routing, progressive web apps, or AI-driven navigation UX may find patentable adjacencies that reduce long-term NPE exposure.
IP white space opportunitySimilar web-navigation and page-redirect patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore NPE patent infringement cases asserting web-navigation and page re-location patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the web-navigation IP landscape
A consent judgment before claim construction in W.D. Texas highlights the continued leverage of web-navigation patents against e-commerce operators.
NPE web-navigation assertions reach major retailers before trial
Recog IP secured a consent judgment against Macy's without proceeding to claim construction or trial. For e-commerce operators, this pattern — NPE filing in W.D. Texas, early resolution — suggests that the cost and reputational risk of prolonged litigation often drives pre-trial exits, regardless of the underlying merits.
Judge Albright's court remains a magnet for patent NPE filings
W.D. Texas under Judge Albright continues to attract NPE plaintiffs asserting software and web-technology patents. Companies with significant e-commerce operations should monitor their patent risk exposure in this venue, particularly for patents covering web navigation, page redirection, and user-session management.
Recog v Macy's — key questions answered
The case closed on January 24, 2023, with a recorded Basis of Termination of Consent Judgment. The docket order is styled as a stipulated dismissal of all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs and fees. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
Recog IP asserted US7296062B2 (application number US10/108595), which covers a method for generating a presentation to re-locate an information page that has already been called — a web-navigation and page re-location technology. No claim construction ruling was issued in this case.
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties. Unlike a private settlement agreement alone, it carries the force of a court order, allowing either party to seek judicial enforcement without re-filing suit. Here, the court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. No merits determination on infringement or validity was made.
No. The case was resolved by consent judgment before any merits adjudication. No claim construction order, invalidity finding, or infringement finding appears in the available public record. US7296062B2 remains a granted patent in full force.
Recog IP was represented by David R. Bennett, Esq. of Direction IP Law. Macy's was represented by Bryan P. Clark, Christian D. Ehret, and Kent E. Baldauf Jr. of The Webb Law Firm PC. The case was presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.